Tony, yes, I believe that would be fine. The best would be to ask
debian-legal (or a similar community) to review it. They have
experience in evaluating software licenses. I'll forward the updated
language to them, and will relay any responses that indicate a
problem.
Generally, it is unfortunate and problematic to create new licenses.
Incompatibilities and problems have a history of turning up later on.
I believe the IETF should adopt a specific permissive license for its
publications to avoid this problem. The license should be reviewed by
the community. If people are interested in this topic, please
participate in the IPR working group.
Regards,
Simon
Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> writes:
If this sentence were changed to read:
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
misleading author or version information.
would that satisfy your concerns? The new wording is similar to the
phrasing found in the comparable statement in punycode's RFC 3492.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Simon Josefsson wrote:
The license in section 1.1 reads:
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted
provided that this document is identified in all material
mentioning or referencing this software.
I believe this part of the license is incompatible with some licenses
used to implement IETF protocols. It has the same problem as the
advertisement clause in the old BSD license. It is thus questionable
whether the document achieve its stated goal.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf